DUI Case Law

DUI Case Law – Ohio DUI | OVI Blog (Due Process)

March 13th, 2014

DUI case law

To understand DUI case law, it is important to understand how the United States Supreme Court analyzes due process issues.  ”The Supreme Court has identified two distinct categories of fundamental liberties. The first category includes most of the liberties expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Through a process known as “selective incorporation,” the Supreme Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to bar states from denying their residents the most important freedoms guaranteed in the first ten amendments to the federal Constitution. Only the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the Third Amendment right against involuntary quartering of soldiers, and the Fifth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury have not been made applicable to the states. Because these rights remain inapplicable to state governments, the Supreme Court is said to have “selectively incorporated” the Bill of Rights into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” [Source].

The second category of fundamental liberties includes those liberties that are not expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights but which are nonetheless deemed essential to the concepts of freedom and equality in a democratic society. These unenumerated liberties are derived from Supreme Court precedents, common law, moral philosophy, and deeply rooted traditions of U.S. Legal History. The word liberty cannot be defined by a definitive list of rights, the Supreme Court has stressed. Instead, it must be viewed as a rational continuum of freedom through which every facet of human behavior is safeguarded from Arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints. In this light, the Supreme Court has observed, the Due Process Clause protects abstract liberty interests, including the right to personal autonomy, bodily integrity, self-dignity, and self-determination. Id.

DUI case law analysis at the United States Supreme Court provides that driving is not “just” a privilege as alleged and assumed by most Ohioans.  You may have heard the expression that a driver’s license is “a privilege — not a right”, and thus there were few effective remedies available to a driver who wished to contest a suspension. The U.S. Supreme Court changed that in Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971), recognizing that a license’s “continued possession may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood”.  Because of their value, then, they “are not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment”.  The Court premised its opinion on the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protections that neither the State or Federal government can deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.  Without this decision it is likely that the police would confiscate your license without any recourse in or appeal.  See also, Mackey v. Montrym (1979) 443 U.S. 1, involving a license suspension for refusing to submit to a DUI breath test. (for other DUI law information and applicable cases please check HERE).

This author argues that the DUI case law needs to be expanded to include “driving” as a fundamental right under the First Amendment’s Freedom of Assembly.  Thus, the analysis should be under the substantive due process analysis not simply under the procedural due process analysis.  Because the human right of freedom of movement, right to earn a living and the right to peaceably assemble are only capable of being maintained with a valid driver’s license, the Court should require a more rigorous standard before depriving someone of this basic right.  The right to drive is a fundamental right that is deeply rooted in American history and tradition.  Why is it important to establish driving as a fundamental right?  Where the right is not a fundamental right, the court applies a rational basis test: if the violation of the right can be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose, then the law is held valid. If the court establishes that the right being violated is a fundamental right, it applies strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny asks whether the law is justified by a compelling state interest, and whether the law is narrowly tailored to address the state interest.

 

For more DUI legal analysis, visit DUI Attorney Charles M. Rowland II.  He dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671.  You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog.  You can email CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.  “All I do is DUI defense.”

 Find information on DUI case law on this blog, or check these city-specific sites at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

 

Ignition Interlock Devices For Everyone – We Warned You!

March 10th, 2014

ignition interlockH.B. 469 (Annie’s Law) presented at the Ohio Statehouse on Thursday will require an ignition interlock device  be installed on the vehicle of all convicted drunk drivers, including first-time offenders.  Ohio law currently prescribes “blow to go” devices for repeat drunk driving offenders, but not on a first offense.  We have longed warned (previous story HERE) that this was at the top of MADD’s agenda and a continuation of their desire to impose penalties on a driver before they are found guilty of an offense.  Essentially, this law is an attack on a person’s presumption of innocence.  State Representatives Terry Johnson (R-McDermott) and Gary Scherer (R-Circleville) are the lead sponsors of House Bill 469.

Currently, interlock search devices are used in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. However, states vary widely in how the ignition interlock devices are used and which drivers are required to install them. In West Virginia, for example, interlock devices are only ordered at a judge’s discretion while Michigan mandates their use for drivers who are found with a BAC more than twice the state’s legal limit.  In Ohio, ignition interlock devices are required for any driver accused of a second OVI (drunk driving) offense and are otherwise discretionary to the judge.  NHTSA and MADD want to eliminate these discrepancies and urge the adoption of a model rule which covers first-time offenders with a BAC just over the legal limit and would require the installation of ignition-preventing interlock search devices on hundreds of thousands more vehicles.  Currently, only 20 states require the devices for anyone convicted of a drunken driving-related offense.

Some studies show that ignition-preventing interlock devices are about 75 percent effective in keeping those previously convicted of drunken driving from repeating their behavior. While there are numerous different designs, the typical ignition interlock requires the driver to blow into a tube that measures breath alcohol levels. If a person fails he or she may try again, for up to three attempts before the vehicle is locked down.  Other versions may also use cameras to record a person’s behavior behind the wheel. Courts may access the data recorded and, in some jurisdictions, a motorist who blew over the limit may face additional penalties.  Ignition Interlock devices typically cost about $150 and may run $80 a month or more to maintain.

Attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671.  You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog.  You can email CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.  “All I do is DUI defense.”

 Find information on Ignition Interlock devices on this blog, or check these city-specific sites at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

MADD’s Agenda For Ohio Is Announced

February 25th, 2014

MADD s agenda for OhioOver the last decade we have learned MADD’s agenda for Ohio via its “Campaign To Eliminate Drunk Driving.”  Their legislative and lobbying efforts have focused on three areas.

  • Support for high-visibility law enforcement activities
  • Legislation requiring ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers
  • Development of automotive technologies for passive alcohol detection

MADD’s agenda for Ohio includes continuing the ineffective and expensive OVI checkpoint approach that is accompanied by a large budget media campaign.  This year, MADD’s agenda for Ohio included a buy-in on their media blitz to announce the new ROBOCOP movie.  As could be expected, they want to expand on this concept.

MADD’s agenda for Ohio includes a push for expanded use of interlock ignition devices. Currently, ignition interlock devices are used in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. However, states vary widely in how the ignition interlock devices are used and which drivers are required to install them. In West Virginia, for example, interlock devices are only ordered at a judge’s discretion while Michigan mandates their use for drivers who are found with a BAC more than twice the state’s legal limit.  In Ohio, ignition interlock devices are required for any driver accused of a second OVI (drunk driving) offense and are otherwise discretionary to the judge.  NHTSA and MADD want to eliminate these discrepancies and urge the adoption of a model rule which covers first-time offenders with a BAC just over the legal limit and would require the installation of ignition interlock devices on hundreds of thousands more vehicles.  Currently, only 20 states require the devices for anyone convicted of a drunken driving-related offense.

MADD’s agenda for Ohio includes working with major insurance companies and automobile manufacturers to get a passive alcohol system (called DADDS) as mandated equipment in every automobile in the world.  In 2008, at MADD’s urging, the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety entered into a $10 million agreement with the federal government to develop such a technology. This system would  search every driver (not just convicted DUI offenders) every single time they started their car.  This year, MADD’s power as one of the nation’s leading lobbying groups resulted in a provision in the Senate transportation bill to ““more widespread deployment of in-vehicle technology” that would prevent drunken driving.  The research will be carried out by the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, a collaboration between NHTSA and the automobile industry.

In a report released earlier this month, MADD set forth “grades” for each state given for the following agenda items:

  • Requiring ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers
  • Conducting sobriety checkpoints
  • Creating enhanced penalties for those who drive drunk with children in the vehicle
  • Participating in “no-refusal” activities for those suspected of drunk driving
  • Utilizing Administrative License Revocation for drunk driving offenders

That’s right, MADD’s agenda for Ohio includes expanded use of ignition interlock, checkpoints, and forced blood draws.  They have also taken great efforts to make sure that Ohio’s decision makers are notified of their plans.  I call on you to contact your State and Federal representative to give your opinion on these and other important issues in the criminal justice system.

Ohio DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671.  You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog.  You can email CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.  “All I do is DUI defense.”

 Find information on MADD’s agenda for Ohio and other city-specific info at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

Ohio’s Best Evidence Rule: What Does It Keep Out Of Evidence?

February 20th, 2014

best evidence rule

Ohio’s Best Evidence Rule is set forth at Evid.R. 1002.  It is very similar to its’ federal counterpart.  Ohio Rule of Evidence 1002 provides that,

To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by statute enacted by the General Assembly not in conflict with a rule of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

But also like its federal counterpartOhio Rule of Evidence 1004(1), Ohio’s Best Evidence Rule, provides that

The original is not required, and other evidence of the contents of a writing, recording, or photograph is admissible if…[a]ll originals are lost or have been destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith.
In a DUI case this issue comes up when a police agency destroys or erases a video tape of the arrest.  DUI defense attorneys will argue that under Ohio’s Best Evidence Rule, the video should be excluded.  In practice, it is very unlikely that a court will exclude evidence under the best evidence rule. See Faith No More: Court Of Appeals Of Ohio Affirms Best Evidence Ruling Based On Lack Of Bad Faith By Police and State v. Moultry, 2010 WL 2622449 (Ohio App. 9 Dist. 2010).

 

For a more complete understanding of the federal best evidence rule, please check out this video from “legal geeks.”

 

 

Attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671.  You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog.  You can emailCharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.  “All I do is DUI defense.”

Best Evidence Rule information and other city-specific info at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

 

Proposed Ohio Alcohol Law Would Loosen Open Container Law

January 7th, 2014

ohio alcohol law

A proposed change in Ohio Alcohol Law would allow folks to walk around with an open container.

Senate Bill 116 allows for the creation of municipal entertainment districts in cities where the population is more than 50,000.  Under the law, patrons of establishments that sell beer or liquor would be permitted to take their drinks outside of the bar or restaurant where it was purchased. Only holders of A-2 and D liquor permits would qualify under the proposed law.  The “entertainment districts” would be limited to a one-half mile by one-half mile radius, and contain at least four A-2 and D permit holders.  So what do you think? Could Ohio ever have its very own Bourbon Street vibe?

OVI Attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671.  You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog.  You can emailCharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.  “All I do is DUI defense.”

Ohio Alcohol Law information and other city-specific info at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

 

Keywords in this article; Ohio Alcohol Law, open container, proposed ohio alcohol law